Diplomacy, debates & delays Tue Aug 7, 12:21 AM ET

Diplomacy, debates & delays Tue Aug 7, 12:21 AM ET



Democratic presidential rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seem to be spending this long, hot summer trying to prove the other wrong or inexperienced.

ADVERTISEMENT


In case you missed it, their spat began at last month's CNN/YouTube debate, when Obama said he'd be willing to meet in his first year as president, without preconditions, with America-hating dictators like the leaders of North Korea, Iran and Venezuela.


Afterward, Clinton called Obama's answer "irresponsible and, frankly, naive." Obama shot back that Clinton's support for the invasion of Iraq was naive and irresponsible.


Perhaps recognizing that his initial response made him look green on foreign policy (in the new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, 60% of Democrats think Clinton would do a better job handling unfriendly nations), Obama began talking tough about "taking the fight to the terrorists" in Pakistan and Afghanistan, though not with nuclear weapons. Clinton replied that presidents shouldn't make blanket statements about nukes. And so on.


Is all this pointless one-upmanship? Not really.


A presidential summit with any world leader is a crucial foreign-policy tool. With friends, it can keep a dialogue going — as President Bush did the past two days with the president of Afghanistan and the week before with Britain's new prime minister.


With adversaries, the proper approach lies somewhere in between immaturity (I don't talk to people I don't like) and gullibility (I'll meet with anyone, anywhere, anytime). At best, a dialogue with enemies can bring a breakthrough, or clear up misunderstandings. At worst, it can be a propaganda coup for a troublemaker seeking to humiliate the United States and its leader.


Bush's stumble into Iraq is an eloquent reminder that knowledge of the world and foreign-policy experience are cornerstones of the job. So far, at least, Clinton is showing more of that savvy than Obama.

Playing with snowmen.

Will there be a Republican version of the CNN/YouTube debate on Sept. 17? A couple of the leading GOP contenders are balking.


Rudy Giuliani likes the debate concept but has a "schedule conflict, a series of fundraisers throughout the day," says campaign spokesperson Maria Comella.


Mitt Romney also has a scheduling conflict — an unspecified event in New York. The former Massachusetts governor also apparently considers the YouTube format to be, well, undignified. "The presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman," he sniffed, referring to the global warming question asked in a falsetto voice by a snowman in the Democrats' debate.


True enough. But for the most part, the videotaped inquisitors were earnest, refreshing, sometimes witty and almost always substantive. One questioner launched the above-mentioned debate about the wisdom of presidents meeting with dictators. Others raised heartfelt issues ranging from gay marriage to the fate of children in Darfur, Sudan.


At last word, the Giuliani and Romney campaigns were negotiating again with CNN to try to make the debate happen. Good. Presidential candidates do a lot of demeaning things, such as calling everyone they've ever met to plead for donations. Raising money shouldn't take precedence over responding to the concerns of inquisitive, ordinary citizens — even ones dressed as snowmen.

Tampering with ballots.

After the 2000 ballot-counting debacle in Florida and evidence of similar problems elsewhere, election officials and politicians across the country solemnly promised to fix a woefully flawed system and restore confidence that in future elections every citizen's vote would get fairly counted.


Fifteen months from the next presidential election, the nation's haphazard approach to voting still is not fixed. Scarcely a week goes by without new evidence of unkept promises, flawed technology and foot-dragging by equipment-makers, state and local officials and Congress.


In California late Friday, the secretary of state decertified the three major electronic voting systems used there — and in many other states — because of fresh concerns over inadequate measures to prevent tampering with the vote. She then reauthorized their use only if they are reconfigured with new, tighter security requirements.


Elsewhere around the USA, reports show, states either haven't spent aid to replace antiquated or malfunctioning equipment, or they haven't adopted adequate security measures for new machines.


Congress, meanwhile, left for its summer vacation without acting on legislation aimed at stiffening ballot-security requirements in federal elections. The latest version would postpone until 2012 the deadline for implementing several needed reforms.

The stampede to new technology after the 2000 recount has unearthed another set of issues that undermine confidence that every vote will be counted honestly. Vendors were more interested in selling machines than in selling tamper-proof machines. The pending legislation in Congress, if it ever passes, would require a paper trail for all electronic votes by next year's presidential election.

That would help. But six-and-a-half years after the Florida fiasco, the nation is ill-equipped to deal with another razor-thin presidential race.

On that, there can be no debate.